| 9 Chux Daniels, Johan Schot, Joanna Chataway, Matias Ramirez, Ed Steinmueller and Laur Kanger CHAPTER 2 Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland, Norway, South Africa and Sweden1 Numerous and critical interlocking economic, social, environmental, technological, political and cul- tural challenges confront our world. These challenges include resource depletion, environmental deg- radation, population growth, industrialisation, climate change, urbanisation, inequality and exclusion. These challenges are expressed in various national, regional and continental frameworks. One such continental framework is the United Nations Agenda 2030, which articulates 17 sustainable devel- opment goals (SDGs) towards addressing such challenges (United Nations 2015). These challenges concern both low- and high-income countries, and they exceed the ability of any single country, gov- ernment, body of governance or scientific discipline to manage them. While innovation is widely invoked as essential to addressing these challenges, the innovation engine often appears to be faltering with the fruits of creative destruction increasingly morphing into destruc- tive creation (Soete 2013; Swilling & Annecke 2012). Innovation may become as much part of the problem as the solution. The ambivalent and open-ended nature of innovation needs be incorporated into the thinking about science, technology and innovation (STI) policy. In this chapter, we argue that innovation needs to be redirected in ways that lead to transformative change, and that for transfor- mative change to take place, a different type of policy and policy-making is essential – transformative innovation policy (TIP). In this sense, innovation policy needs to incorporate concerns that relate to the choice of various innovation options, asking questions about which directions of innovative pathways will indeed address the pressing global challenges confronting our world. This type of thinking about alternative innovation pathways has begun to be articulated under many different labels, for example, responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Stilgoe, Owen & Macnaghten 2013), inclusive innovation (Agola & Hunter 2016; Chataway, Hanlin & Kaplinsky 2014), social inno- vation (Joly 2017; Mulgan 2007), grassroots innovation (Gupta 2012; Smith & Seyfang 2013; Smith, Fressoli & Thomas 2014), frugal innovation (Radjou & Prabhu 2014), and innovation for inclusive development (Daniels, Ustyuzhantseva & Yao 2017; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2012, 2013). While differing in many aspects, the basic and recurrent themes of these approaches are attention to alternative futures and the co-production of STI with society; emphasis on the non-neutral nature of technology; and greater consideration for the environment. Other themes include emphasis on the transformative potential of civil society, attentiveness to the needs and wants of users and non-users alike, and the necessity for innovation to respond better to the needs of lower-income segments of our societies. 1 An earlier version of this chapter was presented as Chataway, Daniels, Kanger, Ramirez, Schot and Steinmueller (2017): ‘Developing and Enacting Transformative Innovation Policy: A Comparative Study’ at the 8th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, 18–21 June 2017 in Gothenburg, Sweden.
15
Embed
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
| 9
Chux Daniels, Johan Schot, Joanna Chataway, Matias Ramirez, Ed
Steinmueller and Laur Kanger
CHAPTER 2
Numerous and critical interlocking economic, social, environmental,
technological, political and cul- tural challenges confront our
world. These challenges include resource depletion, environmental
deg- radation, population growth, industrialisation, climate
change, urbanisation, inequality and exclusion. These challenges
are expressed in various national, regional and continental
frameworks. One such continental framework is the United Nations
Agenda 2030, which articulates 17 sustainable devel- opment goals
(SDGs) towards addressing such challenges (United Nations 2015).
These challenges concern both low- and high-income countries, and
they exceed the ability of any single country, gov- ernment, body
of governance or scientific discipline to manage them.
While innovation is widely invoked as essential to addressing these
challenges, the innovation engine often appears to be faltering
with the fruits of creative destruction increasingly morphing into
destruc- tive creation (Soete 2013; Swilling & Annecke 2012).
Innovation may become as much part of the problem as the solution.
The ambivalent and open-ended nature of innovation needs be
incorporated into the thinking about science, technology and
innovation (STI) policy. In this chapter, we argue that innovation
needs to be redirected in ways that lead to transformative change,
and that for transfor- mative change to take place, a different
type of policy and policy-making is essential – transformative
innovation policy (TIP). In this sense, innovation policy needs to
incorporate concerns that relate to the choice of various
innovation options, asking questions about which directions of
innovative pathways will indeed address the pressing global
challenges confronting our world.
This type of thinking about alternative innovation pathways has
begun to be articulated under many different labels, for example,
responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Stilgoe, Owen &
Macnaghten 2013), inclusive innovation (Agola & Hunter 2016;
Chataway, Hanlin & Kaplinsky 2014), social inno- vation (Joly
2017; Mulgan 2007), grassroots innovation (Gupta 2012; Smith &
Seyfang 2013; Smith, Fressoli & Thomas 2014), frugal innovation
(Radjou & Prabhu 2014), and innovation for inclusive
development (Daniels, Ustyuzhantseva & Yao 2017; Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2012, 2013). While
differing in many aspects, the basic and recurrent themes of these
approaches are attention to alternative futures and the
co-production of STI with society; emphasis on the non-neutral
nature of technology; and greater consideration for the
environment. Other themes include emphasis on the transformative
potential of civil society, attentiveness to the needs and wants of
users and non-users alike, and the necessity for innovation to
respond better to the needs of lower-income segments of our
societies. 1 An earlier version of this chapter was presented as
Chataway, Daniels, Kanger, Ramirez, Schot and Steinmueller
(2017):
‘Developing and Enacting Transformative Innovation Policy: A
Comparative Study’ at the 8th International Sustainability
Transitions Conference, 18–21 June 2017 in Gothenburg,
Sweden.
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 9CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 9 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
10 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
Integral to the new approach to STI policy should be a concern with
the transformation of socio-tech- nical systems rather than a focus
on technological innovation in specific industries and sectors.
This concern is also inspired by the sustainability transitions
literature (Grin et al. 2010; Schot & Steinmueller 2018). The
main argument for the need for transforming these systems is that
optimising existing institutions and practices in individual
sectors – such as energy, healthcare, mobility, agriculture, food,
communication and water management – will not lead, over the medium
and long term, to an adequate response to defined societal
challenges such as those encapsulated in the SDGs. In other words,
a systemic approach is required. Problems are embedded in the
fundamental framing of socio- technical systems and reforms which
ameliorate externalities and negative impacts may extend the
lifespan of existing socio-technical configurations but might not
resolve underlying problems. For example, changes to taxation may
lead to resource redistribution but will not provide incentives for
different patterns of investment in innovation and economic growth,
which could have a more direct and lasting impact. Investment in
health systems may lead to short-term improvements in people’s
ability to access healthcare but long-term pressures on health
budgets and demographic changes mean that more radical changes in
health, social care and approaches to wellbeing will be
needed.
The Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium The Transformative
Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) was formed in 2016 at the 50th
anniversary conference of the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU)
at the University of Sussex. The TIPC is designed to allow members
to co-create a shared understanding about new ways of using STI to
directly address economic, social, and environmental challenges
(Schot et al. 2017). In its pilot phase, from 2016 to 2017, the
TIPC carried out national reviews of STI policies combined with
case studies involving five countries – Colombia, Finland, Norway,
South Africa and Sweden. The objective of the pilot year was to
undertake a mutual learning process between policy makers and
researchers with a view to under- standing existing efforts to move
policy in a more transformative direction.
The TIPC, a global consortium of innovation policy agencies and
funders, brings together policy makers and researchers, with a view
to documenting the emergence of new ways of framing innovation
policy in specific country contexts. In addition, working within
this global context of co-creation, TIPC work also explores new
approaches to evaluation and governance of innovation policies and
capacity building to support transformative innovation
policy-making. The theoretical underpinning for the consortium’s
work, that is, the new framing2 referred to as TIP (or
Transformative Innovation Policy), is inspired by Schot and
Steinmueller (2018), (see also Diercks, Larsen & Steward 2019;
Steward 2012; Weber & Rohracher 2012). This new framing is
informed by theoretical perspectives and literature on innovation
and sustainability transitions/transformation and relates to other
broader sets of literature, including political economy per-
spectives and evolutionary economics. TIP ideas question and
address the relationship between STI, eco- nomic priorities and
benefits and social, environmental and sustainability
objectives.
The goal of the TIPC is to strengthen innovation, including S&T
policy formulation, implementation, evaluation and governance in
order to ensure better prospects for achieving transformative
change across structures, systems and societies. In this chapter,
we provide further background to the TIPC and discuss insights from
the work of the consortium in its pilot period year in 2016–17. The
following questions underpin the discussions that follow: 1. How
can we differentiate between ways of framing research and
innovation policy? 2. What are some of the emerging issues involved
in promoting transitions to sustainability and for-
mulating and implementing TIP?
2 The three frames of Innovation Policy, discussed further in
Section 2.
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 10CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 10 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 11
3. What are some of the challenges, barriers and potential pitfalls
to transformative innovation policies and policy-making?
Based on Schot and Steinmueller (2018), we briefly characterise two
dominant innovation policy frame- works and introduce a third
alternative, the new framing. The appendix provides an overview
table which fleshes out the three frames. Based on the consortium’s
pilot year work in 2016 and 2017, we then present a number of
issues that the consortium is currently working on in developing
TIP initiatives.
The three frames for innovation policy Before presenting different
ways of framing research and innovation it is important to caveat
the analy- sis. We recognise that the frames below are not
water-tight, nor static categories. The three frames (1, 2 and 3)
overlap and influence each other but they do not replace each
other. They need to be com- bined. At this stage, Frame 3 is only
emerging and it represents a variety of types of policy framings
and interventions aimed at directly addressing economic, social and
environmental issues related to research and innovation (R&I)
and S&T. The characterisations of the frames should therefore
be seen as evolving and an attempt to better understand the nature
of innovation-related policies and interven- tions, broadly, rather
than as detailed and finalised categories.
Frame 1: Research and development and regulation The
conceptualisation of the relationship between Research and
Development (R&D) and innovation in this frame is quite
straightforward. Research (or science) leads to innovation. In this
conceptualisa- tion, the key challenge is to invest in research in
an enabling way. This frame emerged out of the 2nd World War and in
the aftermath of the scientific milestones that occurred in those
years as a result of significant investment in R&D in addition
to regulation. The main justification for investment in research
under this frame of thinking revolves around market failure. Market
failure argues that it is not possible for private sector funders
to recoup investment in basic research, resulting in a ‘tragedy of
the commons’ (Hardin 1968) – no single entity from the private
sector will invest in the public good of knowledge. In this way,
Frame 1 provides a rationale for why the state needs to step in to
fund basic science and research. A further element is the thinking
that excellence in science and research (Tijssen &
Kraemer-Mbula 2017; Chataway & Daniels 2020 leads to
innovation, which in turn can lead to economic growth. In response,
governments in Europe and in the US began to expand the research
funding architecture. Consequently, institutional support
mechanisms, such as peer review and other ‘supply-push’ mechanisms,
began to take hold.
The decades that followed from this expanded investment in research
and S&T witnessed a rapid growth in new technologies and
economic growth, along with the expansion of sectors and industries
such as agriculture, aviation, transport and health. However,
alongside this rapid growth came new challenges to the environment
and health. In addition, a raft of negative consequences of techno-
logical advances began to emerge (not unlike that which was seen
after the Industrial Revolution). In keeping with the predominance
of science and scientific expertise, these environmental and health
consequences from the 1960s onwards were dealt with through
science-based regulation. In addition, a parallel infrastructure
began to emerge to link experts with policy makers around
regulating STI (see for example Jasanoff 1990).
The implications of this approach resulted in the dominance of the
so-called ‘linear model’ of innova- tion, based on the notion that
science or research leads to innovation. While we now appreciate
that
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 11CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 11 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
12 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
the rhetoric of such a linear model failed to capture the
complexity of the innovation process, it never- theless prevailed
in policy circles for many years and is still influential in ‘pure’
or modified forms that see the state investing in the supply of
basic and more applied R&D.
Frame 2: National systems of innovation During the 1970s and 1980s,
increased economic pressures and international competition began to
expose the limitations of the first policy framework (namely
innovation policy-making based on Frame 1). Differences in
countries’ ability to withstand economic shocks became more
apparent and the lack of substantial progress in bridging the gap
between the poorest and richest countries in the world caused
concern.
One major issue that analysts such as Nelson (1993) began to note
is that research does not flow freely. Knowledge is ‘sticky’ and
tacit and difficult to transfer. Countries also do not follow a
similar path; varieties of development pathways persist.
Development is bound in complex ways with the institu- tions that
produce it. Evolutionary economists such as Dosi (1982) and others
began to write about the importance of path dependence in
innovation – essentially arguing that countries should follow their
own established pathways, and not try to break from established
routines and practice in order to follow an idealistic model.
To capture these complexities, numerous scholars from different
disciplinary and intellectual back- grounds increasingly began to
refer to a variety of innovation systems (Freeman 1982, 1987;
Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993). The capacity, capabilities and nature
of the relationships between organisations and institutions in any
‘system’, be it national, regional or sectoral, deeply impact the
rate and nature of R&I that occurs. This framework shifts
attention from the creation and diffusion of research to a
consideration of how institutions and organisations function and
interact (and create demand for research). In this
conceptualisation, it is the (interactive) learning and absorptive
capacity between different actors in the system which emerges as
important, as well as entrepreneurship (the avail- ability and
readiness of actors to bring research to the market). This gave
rise to the National Systems of Innovation (NSI) approach to
science and technology (S&T), and latterly, innovation
policy-making. This framing is referred to in this context as Frame
2.
Frame 3: Transformative innovation policy In the last decade (since
2010), STIs have been widely invoked not simply as the foundation
for future growth strategies but as an important component for
resolving a range of social issues such as agricultural,
environmental and health challenges. The view of R&I as
socially relevant in a multiplicity of interdependent ways, as well
as economically beneficial, has led to increasing recog- nition
that the first two policy frames are not well suited to this
ambition. This is because neither Frame 1 nor Frame 2 conceives
R&I in ways targeted to the scale of transformation that is
needed to address complex societal and developmental
challenges.
The relationship between R&I in this frame is not focused on
ensuring that innovation happens (as fast and as much as possible)
but about the direction of innovation. In addition, it is important
whether innovation addresses social and environmental challenges,
alongside economic goals. A differentiat- ing feature of Frame 3 is
therefore the conception of directionality failure (Weber &
Rohracher 2012). For the notion of directionality, see Stirling
(2007, 2008, 2009). In Frame 1, the challenge is to overcome market
failure, whereas in Frame 2, the challenge is to link up
organisations and actors which enable
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 12CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 12 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 13
effective relationships for research translation into innovations
with (commercial) impact. The aim in the policy approach of Frame
2, therefore, is overcoming institutional failure and shaping
markets. Frame 3, however, grapples with directionality failure, or
‘needs failure’ – a failure to address how to meet social and
environmental needs with STI (acknowledging that these needs are
not predefined or given but are to be explored in the process
too).
Meeting development needs depends on bringing together a diverse
understanding and engagement of a wide range of stakeholders across
all stages of R&I pathways in non-linear ways. This calls for a
stronger shift towards a culture of co-creation or co-production of
knowledge (for example science and research) with formal and
‘informal’ innovation systems actors. Formal in this sense refers
to main innovation actors, such as academia, industry and
government, while informal relates to innovation systems actors,
usually considered to be at the periphery of the innovation
ecosystem such as civil society and grassroots innovators. This is
consistent with recent research in four African countries which
show that policy learning and policy experimentation that
incorporate actors and innovations from the informal sector are
essential to achieving transformative change through innovation
(Daniels, 2017; Daniels & Ting 2019).
Furthermore, there is a need to rethink the governance of STI,
research and policy. Rooted in theo- retical work on
socio-technical transitions and long-term transformative change,
initial thinking about Frame 3 indicates that experimental
approaches which will challenge existing socio-technical patterns
are important. Coordination among actors can emerge through these
experiments. Even where new macro level institutions aiming for
coordination emerge and signal the need for new direction, such as
national councils for innovation, any profound change will revolve
around bottom-up socio-technical transitions achieved through
opening up a range of options, experimentation, learning,
networking, and participation. This thinking underpins the work of
the TIPC.
How does each frame address social, economic and environmental
challenges? While Frame 3 is explicitly aimed at directly
addressing societal challenges, each frame is, in prin- ciple, able
to address social needs and environmental issues. Frame 1 would
suggest mission-oriented R&D focused on challenges associated
with social needs and the environment and the regulation and
organisation of a social benefit system to compensate those who
were left behind. It is a supply-driven model which focuses on
research and scientific breakthroughs. Although links with the
markets and users are recognised as important success factors for
innovation, the main emphasis is on stimulating investment in an
effective way. While this frame can integrate needs by allocation
of research funding in areas pertinent to addressing social and
environmental needs (for example medical research on new vaccines,
clean technology programmes), typically it does not enable
sustainability transitions, transformative change and inclusion of
new non-research actors into the frame. Conversely, these are
central elements in Frame 3. The term ‘sustainability transitions’
refers to the long-term transformation of social and technical
(that is, socio-technical) systems in ways that lead to more
sustainable modes of, for example, mobility, production, or
consumption (Grin et al. 2010; Schot & Steinmueller 2018). In
the era of the SDGs, the goal is not only to focus on transitions
towards sustainability but to also address challenges such as
inequality, inclusion and environmental degradation. Achieving this
requires actors to address issues of directionality explicitly, in
realisation that technologies are not only technical but also have
social and environmental aspects embedded in them.
Frame 2, on the other hand, would suggest intervening in existing
NSI to achieve better alignment and coordination (e.g. innovations
in the coordination between medical research and healthcare
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 13CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 13 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
14 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
delivery) or stimulating entrepreneurship in relevant areas.
Initiatives using this framing can and often do include a wider
array of actors, yet focus on process and product innovation,
learning and incre- mental change. They do not focus on radical (or
transformative) change, and tend to leave civil society actors at
the periphery. In sum, for both Frame 1 and Frame 2, a deeper
transformation which would align social and technological change
and redirect mobility, energy, food, agricultural and healthcare
systems away from unsustainable pathways is not a core aim. Instead
the focus is on stimulating inno- vation in order to generate
economic growth. Questions about the directionality embedded in
these innovations are not central.
Frame 3 puts the issue of directionality, social and environmental
needs front and centre. It would sug- gest anticipating and
experimenting with new approaches to innovation for social and
environmental needs that go beyond a focus on creating knowledge or
improving innovation system functioning by focusing directly on
creating conditions for deep socio-technical system changes. Here
the main rationale for policy is transition to sustainability and
transformative change at systems level. Frame 3 policies are
open-ended, focused on learning and bottom-up emergence of
transformation, while keeping the transformation rationale up as a
main driving question (Schot & Steinmueller 2018).
Frames 1 and 2 on the one hand, and Frame 3 on the other hand, are
following a distinct conception of how STI policies contribute to
achieving, for example, economic growth, public welfare and a clean
environment (see Figure 2.1 below). This figure shows that a main
difference between Frames 1 and 2, on the one hand and Frame 3, on
the other hand, is that the former (Frames 1 and 2) address public
welfare and a clean environment through the stimulus of economic
growth and regulation, while the latter (Frame 3) encourages
addressing public welfare and a clean environment in the innovation
process itself, assuming economic growth will follow too (albeit
one with a different content). Frame 3 incorporates the notion of
directionality, which might also lead to a redefinition of economic
growth. Missions can be integrated into Frame 3 as long as the
implementation is done in an open-ended way through
experimentation.
Confront environmental
and societal challenges
Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Solid line: This shows the frame addressed
explicitly by this aspect
(e.g. the link between knowledge creation and utilisation in Frame
2). Dotted line: This indicates that an aspect is assumed to follow
automatically
(e.g. the utilisation of the results of basic scientific research
by industries in Frame 1).
Creative Commons Licence
FIGURE 2.1: STI policy frames and how they aspire to achieve public
welfare and a clean environment Source: Authors
Research and development
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 15
Using the three frames to map STI policy in consortium countries
The TIPC, as stated earlier, carried out its pilot phase between
2016 and 2017. The part of the work associated with the pilot phase
was to map national STI policy ecosystems – focusing on research
funding and innovation initiatives, using the three frames as the
basis for discussion and analysis. The mapping and case-study work
was achieved with background research carried out by SPRU and TIPC
partners in the context of country-based interviews, focus group
meetings, workshops with stakehold- ers and analysis of policy
documents. These workshops brought together a wide range of STI
policy stakeholders – government, industry, academia, civil
societies, funders and others – to explore the notion of
transformative innovation based on selected national case
studies.
The case studies cover diverse areas but have been selected
according to the following principles, referred to as TIP criteria:
1) directionality: focus on alternative futures associated with
technologi- cal design choices; 2) goal: focus on grand societal
challenges – economic, environmental or social; 3) impact: focus on
socio-technical systems and system-level issues; 4) degree of
learning and reflexiv- ity: focus on second-order learning,
problematisation of operating routines of different actors and the
creation of spaces for experimentation; 5) conflict: focus on
disruptive change, possibly resulting in major disagreements
between actors; and 6) inclusiveness: focus on initiatives with a
broad base of participation, including the consideration of
non-users as potentially affected parties.
Methodology To reiterate, data for the case studies was collected
through focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews,
analysis of policy documents, and workshops. The workshops with
stakeholders were used to construct transformative innovation
(policy) learning histories (TILH). Use of the TILH methodology
helped to ensure that although the case studies were diverse, there
is value in comparing the vari- ous transformative innovation
attempts to formulate and implement Frame 3 policy and innovation
approaches. The transformative innovation and TIP insights we
discuss below are based on the five country case studies and
results of the mapping exercise.3
Insights based on results of mapping the STI ecosystems and
policies of case-study countries All five countries provide
evidence of a move from Frames 1 and 2 towards a Frame 3 rationale.
The findings suggest that addressing societal and environmental
needs through STI policies is recognised in all five countries and
an emerging set of initiatives have already been put in place to
implement the new rationale. All consortium member countries are
experiencing a different range of economic, social and
environmental challenges and these challenges shape both the
articulation and implementation of Frame 3 approaches. Cultural and
political histories are important and account for some of the dif-
ferences and particularities. For example, the importance of
consensus and bottom-up approaches in Sweden, the legacy of
apartheid in South Africa, and of conflict in Colombia have all
played a role in shaping the content and institutional features of
emergent Frame 3 approaches. While it is true that Frame 3 policies
are still marginal, they are presented as critical and, in some
cases, as part of urgent and priority policy agendas. There is a
weight of expectation which reflects a clear need for new direc-
tions in policy but may present problems if policies do not deliver
rapidly.
3 The various mapping and case-study reports or TILHs are available
from the TIPC website at http://www.tipconsortium.
net/materials/
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 15CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 15 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
16 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
Each country has its own specific approach and its own narrative
around the emergence of R&I poli- cies targeted at social,
economic and environmental challenges. In the case of Colombia, the
country’s emerging Frame 3 policies are interwoven with its peace
process and attempts to overcome regional divisions. Finland’s
development of Frame 3 policies is integrated into initiatives
aimed at overcoming the economic crisis resulting from the loss of
Nokia which was the leading technology company and main economic
driver in Finland. In Norway, a move towards a more knowledge-based
economy is accompanied by using RRI thinking to make R&I more
responsive to societal demands. South Africa’s Frame 3 type
policies are closely aligned to goals towards broader
transformation of an economy based on the legacies of apartheid and
are integrated into efforts to overcome exclusion and unem-
ployment. Lastly, Sweden is developing green business as it
restructures its industrial base and is using state-supported
R&I to support that transition.
The findings from the case studies also reveal that some consortium
members are currently grappling with how to integrate Frame 3
elements more explicitly into their STI policies, develop relevant
policy interventions and build clearer conceptual apparatus to
guide their policy formulation, implementa- tion and evaluation.
One expression of this desire is that during the mapping process,
two consortium agencies began to think about a more extensive
mapping exercise that would map all instruments and programmes onto
the multilevel perspective representation of transformative change
in order to identify gaps in instruments. Here, niche experiments
would be thought about in relation to changes needed to facilitate
broader meso-level change and in relation to support or obstacles
presented by broader policy tools and environments. This kind of
exercise would potentially have many benefits, including
encouraging reflection on ‘policy mixes’ which could facilitate
successful transition to sus- tainability (Mohamed 2018; Rogge
& Reichardt 2015) and political economy factors which
facilitate or impede transition and transformation (Byrne, Mbeva
& Ockwell 2018; Chataway et al. 2019).
Actors and new management and organisational practices In each
country, the constellation of actors involved in initiatives with
Frame 3 characteristics and ambitions is different. In all
countries, traditional funders of R&I have played a key role.
Thus, there is evidence that funders are seeking to move more to a
role of change agents for transformative change. This, of course,
is far from straightforward. Initial analysis suggests that this
may be linked to the point made previously, namely that explicit
articulation of Frame 3 rationale and theories of change for how to
address societal and environmental challenges through STI policies
are missing or at best under- developed.
The active involvement of multiple government ministries, and a
host of local actors, including grassroots innovators, informal
economy actors, and civil society and city actors, is key to Frame
3 initiatives and policy-making. Involving a multiplicity of actors
does not necessarily mean constructive or non-rivalrous
relationships between them. In addition, transformation processes
typically will induce and provoke con- flict, such as oppositions
and a diversity of views and positions. This can be productive
since it might lead to second-order (or deep) learning, yet
obviously it can also lead to non-action or even counter-action.
Whether or not conflict exists, Frame 3 approaches add complexity
to participation, and this again raises questions about appropriate
management and governance arrangements. Thus, one of the aims in
the case studies was to explore the way in which conflict and
disagreement were handled.
The case studies mapping exercise highlighted important questions.
For instance, a host of questions need to be asked in relation to
the way that more engaged agendas develop. Will ‘bottom-up’
participa- tive mechanisms actually reflect the need for more
radical transformation to achieve environmental or particular
social goals or will they reflect lowest common denominators and a
series of compromises that
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 16CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 16 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 17
may need to be made? Or, might more radical agendas be captured by
powerful interests? In Sweden, an Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) assessment indicates that the
Challenge-Driven Innovation programme, used as the case study,
builds explicitly on action-oriented approaches involving multiple
stakeholders, including end-users, and gives those users more
responsibil- ity in implementing and monitoring projects.
Another question often asked is whether the relationship between
actors should be managed through administrative coordination such
as in various inter-ministerial committees or even a national
science, technology or innovation council. Or, might this approach
run counter to the experimental ethos which Schot &
Steinmueller (2018) suggest plays a crucial role in the development
of Frame 3 approaches? In that case the best option is perhaps not
to focus on administrative coordination but to engage a range of
actors in new initiatives to ensure coordination on the
ground.
Experimentation The Frame 3 perspective contests the idea that
there is a best or optimal approach to achieving the
socio-technical innovations necessary for meeting social and
environmental needs. It therefore focuses on experimental
approaches (Schot, Kivimaa & Torrens 2019). Experimental
approaches, in this case, do not imply that randomised clinical
trials (RCTs) are the most appropriate means of progressing policy.
The levels of contextual difference and variation are too great to
make that approach the most relevant vehicle for learning or
establishing good practice, and the focus on a broad change process
cannot be captured through RCTs. Experiments have to be seen as
instruments contributing to niche formation. The relationships
between niche experiments, socio-technical transition and
transformation are impor- tant components of the theoretical
framework underpinning TIPC work (Schot & Steinmueller 2018).
This includes a focus on shielding, nurturing and empowering of
niches. At the same time, a destabili- sation of prevailing
socio-technical systems is seen as a necessary condition for
enduring change too.
The need to view smaller-scale niche experiments as triggers for
the introduction of more radical change highlights another aspect
of analysis: the need to develop thinking and understanding of the
political economy of Frame 3 initiatives. Recent work on political
economy perspectives makes a strong argument for ‘discursive
institutionalist’ approaches to political economy analysis (Kern
2011; Byrne et al. 2018; Chataway et al. 2019) which are
particularly relevant to situations characterised by high degrees
of uncertainty in which actors may not fully understand their
interests (Hudson & Leftwich 2014). From this perspective, it
is important to focus on ideas and narratives, as well as interests
and institutions.
In all of the five TIPC case-study countries, there was evidence of
experimentation (Schot et al. 2019) with new policy practices and
discussions on how new directions for innovation policy can be dis-
cerned (while destabilisation policies are not present). In South
Africa, the triple challenge of eradicat- ing inequality, poverty
and unemployment was the backdrop for new initiatives, such as
Cofimvaba Tech4RED, which attempted to devolve responsibilities to
local communities, sought to support grassroots-based
entrepreneurialism and bring stakeholders together for improvements
in rural
4 Cofimvaba Technology for Rural Education and Development
(Tech4RED) is an integrated and experimental rural development
initiative in the Eastern Cape district of South Africa. Tech4RED
was led by the Department of Science and Innovation (DSI)
(previously Department of Science and Technology [DST]) in
partnership with the Department for Basic Education (DBE), the
Province of the Eastern Cape’s Department of Education (DoE), the
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLR), and other
innovation ecosystem actors from industry (for example Vodafone),
academia and civil society. As a transformative innovation project,
Tech4RED focused on six thematic areas – ICT, Nutrition, Health,
Sanitation, Energy, and Science communication. The goal was to
foster transformative change at systems level and support the
realisation of South Africa’s national development goals as
articulated in the country’s National Development Plan (NDP).
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 17CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 17 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
18 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
education. There is also an indication of broader involvement of
actors in Colombia in a limited range of programmes with a
particular emphasis on articulating problems from a community level
and expressing these online to encourage ideas for solutions from a
variety of sources.
One example of experimentation relates to policies and programmes
that specifically aim to link research to social goals. The
objective is for such policies and programmes to remain oriented to
traditional actors but also supported by a new national strategy
and by taxation on mineral royal- ties. A regional development bank
has also played an important role in helping to bridge broader
development efforts in science and research policy. In both
countries, South Africa and Colombia, experiments with new
configurations of actors and more decentralised initiatives are
secondary to efforts aimed at maintaining or improving traditional
STI institutions. A similar conclusion can be drawn for Norway,
Sweden and Finland for their responsible R&I initiatives and
their challenge-led and strategic programmes.
The role of funders The consortium’s composition focuses attention
on the role of national research funders on the bal- ance between
the three frames and the understandings and definitions of social
and environmental needs. Because research funders have an ongoing
responsibility for the knowledge infrastructure and because they
are major players in the national innovation systems, it would be
surprising if they chose to cast aside established practices of
governance and evaluation mechanisms which support that gov-
ernance. However, conventional indicators associated with spending
on research are powerful and they shape as well as measure
behaviour. Governance and evaluation are key to the extent to which
Frame 3 is able to take root in policy environments.
The experimentation with practice, noted in the previous section,
involves an ongoing set of changes in the structure of governance,
encompassing both dispersal of administrative control to other
actors and assumption of a more active role in the implementation
of initiatives. The principal type of disper- sal is in the
definition of initiatives where it now seems broadly accepted in
all the countries that a local (in terms of geography or sector)
definition of objectives and the means of meeting those objectives
are desirable. This change, in turn, leads to other questions
concerning governance.
Where traditional funding arrangements might focus on
well-established actors, new initiatives are likely to involve a
multiplicity of organisational types, most of which are less formal
and perhaps less stable than the traditional actors. This has
implications for the funding agencies’ roles in monitoring
activities and implementing interventions during the life of
particular projects. It also suggests a less arms-length
relationship between the funding agency and those who might seek to
be included in new initiatives. This raises the following question:
To what extent do funding agencies need to develop new capabilities
for promoting the availability and assisting in the application for
support for social and environmental initiatives that have Frame 3
elements (broader participation, openness to experi- mentation and
attention to issues of anticipation or foresight)?
Indicators, measurement and evaluation The TIPC is at an early
stage of developing STI indicators and evaluation tools and
perspectives for transformative change. Frames 1 and 2 are
associated with a variety of supply, networking and demand policy
interventions. The relative success of those interventions can be
measured against theoreti- cal and practice-based expectations and
learning. Frame 3 initiatives make use of some of the same
mechanisms in targeting social, economic and environmental
challenges, but as yet, little thought has
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 18CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 18 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 19
been given to whether new instruments are needed or different
policies may be combined in novel ways to achieve different aims
and objectives, and whether initiatives that do not achieve
immediate goals should be judged to have failed.
In summary, the following issues and evaluation criteria will be
important to consider as part of devel- oping Frame 3 policy
thinking for evaluation: 1. Democratisation of deliberation and
choice with regard to goals and possibly implementation (with
the accompanying question of how to democratise governance and
evaluation). How can TIP crite- ria be built into evaluation
frameworks?
2. Explicit consideration of the means to disrupt existing
arrangements that are negatively affecting or blocking paths to
meeting social and environmental needs (not only ‘bad’ prospective
innova- tions but existing innovations that have negative
implications) is required. What is the best way to identify and
evaluate the impact of negatives?
3. Explicit pursuit of experimental approaches based upon the logic
that (a) more of the same (policies and practices) produces more of
the same (outcomes, perpetuation of policies and practices); and
(b) prior or ex-ante knowledge of best alternatives is unavailable
without experience. But, adapta- tion will be important. How can we
promote adaptive approaches?
4. Existing evaluative frameworks and methods reinforce existing
practices and bias planning and implementation toward prioritising
traditional goals. Nonetheless, new evaluative frameworks and
methods are needed for accountability. Can ex-ante methods and
theory of change approaches be helpful here or do we need to
develop new and alternative evaluation tools and methods? If yes,
what resources, capabilities and theories will underpin this
exercise?
5. A broader scope of analysis is needed to anticipate alignment in
changes with specific socio- technical systems in the direction of
more profound change. What should be the indicators and signs of
change that we identify and use?
These questions are at the core of the evaluation and
accountability analysis that the TIPC hopes to develop and will be
important as consortium members carry out experiments in Frame 3
policy. What makes an experiment worth doing? Can an experiment
that fails to achieve its initial objectives be seen as an
investment with a social return? If there is not a universal path
to transformation, how can we evaluate the nature, outcomes and
impacts of transition? How can we assess when a particular
initiative is to generate higher-order or double-loop learning
(learning useful insights about the larger process in which the
initiative is lodged that will positively influence the definition
and implementa- tion of future initiatives)?
At present, the mapping work suggests that Frame 3 initiatives are
being undertaken because of their self-evident value, that is,
because their objectives are consistent with addressing social or
environ- mental challenges. In some cases, particularly in the
cases of the Scandinavian countries, initiatives have been taken
under the premise that better outcomes might be possible by a more
‘bottom-up’ definition of initiatives. In either case, the eternal
evaluative question – how can we know whether progress or
transformation has been achieved? – is relevant. For this reason,
recent TIPC work has focused on developing an evaluation
methodology for addressing this question (see for example Boni,
Giachi & Molas-Gallart 2019).
It is important to note that in developing the evaluation tools and
techniques, theories of change and development of Frame 3
narratives may be usefully supported by various types of ‘futures’
and ex-ante evaluation work. Consortium members have begun to think
about this. For example, Finland and Norway are to some extent
integrating foresight activities into current efforts to link
R&I with targeted social and environmental goals. Foresight and
other future techniques may well be an impor- tant tool for
provoking more creative and radical approaches to
transformation.
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 19CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 19 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
20 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
Scenario-based approaches, particularly those that are agent-based
and look at how behaviours may change and evolve, could help both
in designing and monitoring work and encouraging experimenta- tion.
Using futures work in developing theories of change may also be a
way to counter the inherent conservatism in ex-ante evaluation of
proposals for Frame 3 type work. Inherent conservatism, as used
here, refers to the tendency to look for evidence to approaches
that have worked in the past, and not to consider the scenarios
which may allow them to work in future.
Conclusion and areas of further work This chapter has provided an
overview of the thinking behind TIP designed to foster new
approaches to science, technology and innovation policy for
transformative change, and the work of the TIPC. From the analyses,
we found that elements of the three frames were present in all the
case studies across the five countries – Colombia, Finland, Norway,
South Africa and Sweden. In all five countries, there are examples
of important experimental initiatives of local municipalities,
cities, regional authorities and national governments in promoting
Frame 3 (for example, transformative change) approaches.
In terms of fostering experimental approaches, creating space in
broader regulatory, organisational and institutional frameworks for
these initiatives is a significant issue. An important question
relates to how to connect the various experimental initiatives,
upscale them and make them transformative. This question may be
answered on a national, regional or transnational scale. This
connecting-up work might be an important role for national funders
and innovation or policy agencies. Ways to join up vari- ous
experimental initiatives, upscale them and ensure that they are
transformative, constitute an area of ongoing or future research
and further policy work. Current programmes in the TIPC are
exploring policy experimentation, evaluation and related issues
(Boni et al. 2019; Schot et al. 2019).
Also, in all five countries, the differences between the frames
were found to be implicit rather than articulated. This has
consequences for the way in which policy is formulated,
implemented, monitored, evaluated and governed. In addition, it
seems likely that a lack of a more clearly defined Frame 3 agenda
may limit consideration of a more formal reflection of how
different framings of policy and policy instruments might support
or hinder each other and what gaps might exist. Rather, there is an
implicit assumption that policies and policy instruments associated
with the policies can be easily combined. There is also limited
consideration of new policy instruments and mechanisms that might
need to accompany changes in how organisations fund research, build
networks or govern STI policies. Frame 3 aims are largely pursued
using Frame 1 and 2 instruments, which thus far have proven to be
inadequate in delivering intended objectives.
Work in the pilot phase of the TIPC is informing the development of
a broader research agenda, experi- mentation and evaluation
approaches, and the development of Frame 3-based theories of
change. These evaluation strategies need to be rooted in a
theoretical understanding of the relationships between niche
experimentation, socio-technical transition and transformation,
political economy perspectives, as well as initial learning from
the mapping exercise and insights from the case-study findings,
discussed in this chapter. Currently, the lack of explicit
articulation of Frame 3 rationales and logics is a barrier to being
able to develop more precise thinking about what specific
partnerships, networks, interventions, and policy instruments or
mixes are meant to achieve. This again constitutes an area for
future research and further policy work.
Analysis of the TIPC pilot year produced other important insights.
For example, the findings revealed that transformative change
follows a non-linear policy process and requires proactive policy
engage- ments over a number of years. The proactive policy
engagements might be fraught with many uncer-
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 20CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 20 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 21
tainties in the processes involved, necessitating fragmented policy
mixes, and often work best through employing a mixture of bottom-up
and top-down approaches. In addition, agency matters. Human
resources and leadership (policy champions) are important, as
people are required to maintain trans- formative change processes.
Successful transformation results in the formation of new routines
and new framings of societal challenges. Such challenges have to be
open-ended and allow for opening up, tensions and conflicts and
then for closing down to allow for acceptable sustainable pathways
to emerge. Furthermore, there is a need for evaluation of
transformative change policies. Evaluation of transformative change
policies, processes, programmes and projects must be
context-specific and will require new types of programme theory,
indicators and metrics. Early indications from TIPC work suggest
that formative evaluation is likely to yield better results in
contrast to evaluation for account- ability. There is need for more
robust empirical evidence in this regard.
To reiterate, elements of all three frames were present in all five
case-study countries. Nevertheless, Frame 3 misses a strong
narrative, consistency and specific policy instruments required to
operation- alise the relevant policy objectives articulated in the
case-study projects, programmes and policies examined. This has a
negative implication for the governance to be exercised in this
regard. TIPC members and associates are currently working on
developing a more coherent approach to Frame 3 thinking. Learning
and adaptation are central to a Frame 3 approach and so is the
ability to continually iterate between intended impacts and
outcomes. Incorporating TIP ideas into policy formulation is not
enough: implementation is vital if we are going to see
transformative change. To this end, ongoing TIPC research and
policy work aims to accomplish objectives that include: (a)
developing new narra- tives around TIP and Frame 3 thinking; (b)
building a set of demonstrators on how to approach, imple- ment,
evaluate and govern TIP; and (c) establishing a network of people
and organisations working from transformative perspectives in
relation to innovation across the globe.
TIPC members and associates believe that innovation should serve
the quest for transformation. In order to achieve this goal of
transformative change, innovation (including science and
technology) policies must focus on societal goals, deep
socio-technical changes and a sustainability agenda – as captured
in the SDGs. The main aim of public policy should be to induce
transformation and ongoing technological change processes.
References Agola NO & Hunter A (Eds) (2016) Inclusive
innovation for sustainable development: theory and practice.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan
Boni A, Giachi S & Molas-Gallart J (2019) Key principles for a
formative evaluation of transformative innovation policy, TIPC
Policy Brief Issue 1, March 2019
Byrne R, Mbeva K & Ockwell D (2018) A political economy of
niche-building: Neoliberal-developmental encounters in photovoltaic
electrification in Kenya. Energy Research & Social Science 44:
6–16
Chataway J and Daniels C (2020). The Republic of Science meets the
Republics of Somewhere: Embedding scientific excellence in
sub-Saharan Africa. In E Kraemer-Mbula, R Tijssen, M L Wallace
& R McLean (Eds), Transforming Research Excellence: New Ideas
from the Global South. Cape Town, South Africa: African Minds.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3607326.
Chataway J, Hanlin R & Kaplinsky R (2014) Inclusive innovation:
an architecture for policy development. Innovation and Development
4(1): 33–54
Chataway J, Dobson C, Daniels C, Byrne R, Tigabu A & Hanlin R
(2019) Science Granting Councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and
tensions. Science and Public Policy 46 (4): 620–631
Daniels C, Ustyuzhantseva O & Yao W (2017) Innovation for
inclusive development, public policy support and triple helix:
perspectives from BRICS. African Journal of Science, Technology,
Innovation and Development 9(5): 513–527
Daniels, C (2017) Science, technology and innovation in Africa:
Conceptualisations, relevance and policy directions. In: C Mavhunga
(Ed.) What Do Science, Technology and Innovation Mean from Africa?
Chicago: MIT Press
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 21CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 21 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
22 | Innovation policy at the intersection: Global debates and
local experiences
Daniels, C & Ting, B (2019) Transforming science, technology
and innovation policies in Africa: Insights from Ghana, Kenya,
Senegal and South Africa. TIPC Policy Brief November 2019
Diercks G, Larsen H, & Steward F (2019) Transformative
innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy
paradigm. Research Policy 48(4): 880–894
Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological
trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and
directions of technical change. Research Policy 11(3):
147–162
Freeman C (1982) The economics of industrial innovation (2nd
edition) London: Pinter
– – (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from
Japan. London: Pinter
Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J, Geels, F & Loorbach D (2010)
Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study
of long term transformative change. New York, NY: Routledge
Gupta AK (2012) Innovations for the poor by the poor. International
Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development 5:
28–39
Hardin, G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):
1243–1248, DOI:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hudson, D & Leftwich A (2014) From political economy to
political analysis. Birmingham Developmental Leadership
Programme
Kern F (2011) Ideas, institutions, and interests: Explaining policy
divergence in fostering ‘system innovations’ towards
sustainability. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy
29(6): 1116–1134
Lundvall B (Ed.) (1992) National systems of innovation: Towards a
theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter
Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: Science advisors as policy
makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Joly P-B (2017) Beyond the competitiveness framework? Models of
innovation revisited. Journal of Innovation Economics &
Management 1(22): 79–96
Mohamed N (Ed.) (2018) Sustainability transitions in South Africa.
London: Routledge
Mulgan G (2007) Social innovation. London: Young Foundation
Pawson
Nelson R (Ed.) (1993) National innovation systems. A comparative
analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development)
(2012) Innovation for development: A discussion on the issues and
an overview of work of the OECD directorate for science, technology
& industry. Paris: OECD
Radjou N & Prabhu J (2014) What frugal innovators do. Harvard
Business Review, Accessed November 2019,
https://hbr.org/2014/12/what-frugal-innovators-do
Rogge K & Reichardt K (2015) Going beyond instrument
interactions: Towards a more comprehensive policy mix
conceptualization for environmental technological change. SPRU
Working Paper Series No. 12
Schot J, Daniels C, Torrens J & Bloomfield G (2017) Developing
a shared understanding of transformative innovation policy. TIPC
Research Brief, 2017–01. Accessed October 2019,
http://tipconsortium.net/wp-content/
uploads/2018/04/TIPC-Research-Brief.-Developing-a-Shared-Understanding-of-Transformative-Innovation-
Policy-FINAL_.pdf
Schot J & Steinmueller WE (2018) Three frames for innovation
policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change.
Research Policy 47: 1554–1567
Schot J, Kivimaa P & Torrens J (2019) Transforming
experimentation: Experimental policy engagements and their
transformative outcomes. TIPC Research Report March 2019
Smith A, Fressoli M & Thomas H (2014) Grassroots innovation
movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner
Production 63: 114–124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025
Smith A & Seyfang G (2013) Constructing grassroots innovations
for sustainability. Global Environmental Change 23: 827–829.
Doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.003
Soete L (2013) Innovation, growth and welfare: from creative
destruction to destructive creation. Paper for the SPRU DIG-IT
workshop inclusive growth, innovation and technology:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. Accessed October 2019,
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=soete-dig-itworkshopsoete.
pdf&site=25
Steward F (2012) Transformative innovation policy to meet the
challenge of climate change: socio-technical networks aligned with
consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon
society or green economy. Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management 24(4): 3331–3343
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 22CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 22 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49
Transformative Innovation Policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland,
Norway, South Africa and Sweden | 23
Stilgoe J, Owen R & Macnaghten, P (2013) Developing a framework
for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580
Stirling A (2007) A general framework for analyzing diversity in
science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society
Interface 4: 707–719
Stirling A (2008) ‘Opening up’ and ‘closing down’: power,
participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology.
Science, Technology and Human Values 33(2): 262–294
– – (2009) Direction, distribution, diversity! Pluralising progress
in innovation, sustainability and development. SPEPS Working Paper
32. STEPS Centre, University of Sussex
Swilling M & Annecke E (2012) Just transitions. Explorations of
sustainability in an unfair world. Tokyo: United Nations University
Press
Tijssen R and Kraemer-Mbula E (2017) Research excellence in Africa:
Policies, perceptions, and performance. Science and Public Policy
45(3): 392–403
United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for
sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly. Accessed October 2019,
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/
RES/70/1&Lang=E
Weber KM & Rohracher H (2012) Legitimizing research, technology
and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining
insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a
comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy 41(6):
1037–1047
CB123_Innovation Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 23CB123_Innovation
Policy_JB_MASTERSET.indb 23 25/02/2020 10:4925/02/2020 10:49